In post 724, Oblivion wrote:
It had a very hard day yesterday, and it has now fallen ill. It is reading along as the game goes to ensure it remains caught up, so it will not fall behind. To assist it, can players provide it things that they want its take on or ask it questions by quoting this post so it can receive notifications to respond to when it has energy again?
It would be very grateful, friends.
Any thoughts on the very spread out vote count, with many people voting players who are virtually certain to have a PR?
In post 144, Dunnstral wrote:
Can you show an example of two mafia picking the same draft number in a previous version of this setup?
The point is that they could, not that they will. Whether they have or not is immaterial, gambler's fallacy.
This is a game of "could"s, though. Determining what is more likely and staking your moves on that, then adapting with new information is the entire methodology of the game.
Simply stating that because somehting "could" happen that we shouldn't act upon the idea that it is unlikely and attempt to solve with a mentality in mind feels reductive and dismissive, to it.
It thinks there is a good line of reasoning and ability to choose where to look first in the logic it has presented. It even stated that it wasn't willing to say it was a certainty, and yet here we are discussing in a circle about "if something IS possible then we should consider both worlds" instead of hedging and using logic to try and eliminate worlds until proven otherwise.
Eliminating people from consideration as possible scum without evidence from their posting and votes (and before mechanical results but that comes later) is one of the worst things town can do.
Not sure why it's focusing on 17 when it didn't even say anything until 40, care to explain that aspect of the points it's making?
In post 724, Oblivion wrote:
It had a very hard day yesterday, and it has now fallen ill. It is reading along as the game goes to ensure it remains caught up, so it will not fall behind. To assist it, can players provide it things that they want its take on or ask it questions by quoting this post so it can receive notifications to respond to when it has energy again?
It would be very grateful, friends.
Any thoughts on the very spread out vote count, with many people voting players who are virtually certain to have a PR?
In post 144, Dunnstral wrote:
Can you show an example of two mafia picking the same draft number in a previous version of this setup?
The point is that they could, not that they will. Whether they have or not is immaterial, gambler's fallacy.
This is a game of "could"s, though. Determining what is more likely and staking your moves on that, then adapting with new information is the entire methodology of the game.
Simply stating that because somehting "could" happen that we shouldn't act upon the idea that it is unlikely and attempt to solve with a mentality in mind feels reductive and dismissive, to it.
It thinks there is a good line of reasoning and ability to choose where to look first in the logic it has presented. It even stated that it wasn't willing to say it was a certainty, and yet here we are discussing in a circle about "if something IS possible then we should consider both worlds" instead of hedging and using logic to try and eliminate worlds until proven otherwise.
Eliminating people from consideration as possible scum without evidence from their posting and votes (and before mechanical results but that comes later) is one of the worst things town can do.
Not sure why it's focusing on 17 when it didn't even say anything until 40, care to explain that aspect of the points it's making?
What I believe Dave (or David / other ancient characters if he prefers) means in these two posts is that we should be consolidating votes onto the same person today to build pressure onto them and see how they react. In this day, we aren't eliminating possibilities, but searching them.
In post 779, davesaz wrote:
Big difference between day 1 and later days.
Eliminating scum is eliminating scum. If people have reason to suspect someone of being scum, what's it matter where they are in the power role hierarchy?
In post 724, Oblivion wrote:
It had a very hard day yesterday, and it has now fallen ill. It is reading along as the game goes to ensure it remains caught up, so it will not fall behind. To assist it, can players provide it things that they want its take on or ask it questions by quoting this post so it can receive notifications to respond to when it has energy again?
It would be very grateful, friends.
Any thoughts on the very spread out vote count, with many people voting players who are virtually certain to have a PR?
In post 144, Dunnstral wrote:
Can you show an example of two mafia picking the same draft number in a previous version of this setup?
The point is that they could, not that they will. Whether they have or not is immaterial, gambler's fallacy.
This is a game of "could"s, though. Determining what is more likely and staking your moves on that, then adapting with new information is the entire methodology of the game.
Simply stating that because somehting "could" happen that we shouldn't act upon the idea that it is unlikely and attempt to solve with a mentality in mind feels reductive and dismissive, to it.
It thinks there is a good line of reasoning and ability to choose where to look first in the logic it has presented. It even stated that it wasn't willing to say it was a certainty, and yet here we are discussing in a circle about "if something IS possible then we should consider both worlds" instead of hedging and using logic to try and eliminate worlds until proven otherwise.
Eliminating people from consideration as possible scum without evidence from their posting and votes (and before mechanical results but that comes later) is one of the worst things town can do.
Not sure why it's focusing on 17 when it didn't even say anything until 40, care to explain that aspect of the points it's making?
What I believe Dave (or David / other ancient characters if he prefers) means in these two posts is that we should be consolidating votes onto the same person today to build pressure onto them and see how they react. In this day, we aren't eliminating possibilities, but searching them.
Wrong.
He's saying we shouldn't be removing people from elimination consideration without sufficient evidence to back it up. In the second post, he is basically refuting the idea of deciding who to or not to vote based on draft information alone.
In the first vote, he almost flips this stance by stating that likelihood of PR matters.
He's saying we shouldn't be removing people from elimination consideration without sufficient evidence to back it up. In the second post, he is basically refuting the idea of deciding who to or not to vote based on draft information alone.
In the first vote, he almost flips this stance by stating that likelihood of PR matters.
The PR or not PR always matters. In this game we have extra information that allows us to not run up a bunch of people and get their claims prematurely, thus depriving scum of the best way of deciding which of the expected PRs is the highest priority to kill.
Wanna play Minecraft with your ms friends? Check out the minecraft thread, or the channel on discord
I always make the exact same arguments every game of this setup or its ilk, regardless of my position in the draft. I even argued against taking me out of the scum pool when I was town and happened to double (or maybe it was triple).
Wanna play Minecraft with your ms friends? Check out the minecraft thread, or the channel on discord
"You are the Joker of mafia players" - Oversoul
"last time I was scum with Firebringer
his first post in the scum PT was "yes I rolled scum!"
I decided to post "haha just don't post that in the main thread", but to get up to date on the main thread first.
His first post in the main thread was "yes I rolled scum!" -popsofctown
Halfpaw sounds like one of those early season warrior names where it makes sense but then you try to guess why they were called Halfkit and dissociate thru the floor
